Backward compatible?

Subject: Backward compatible?
From: Geoff Hart <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
To: "Techwr-L (E-mail)" <TECHWR-L -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:26:36 -0500

Jane Carnall wondered about the backward compatibility of the sentence <<The
TinWoodman4 heart is fully backward compatible with the latest patch for
TinWoodman3.>>

This is the wording I'm most familiar with, but although it's well-accepted
jargon, I'm mostly convinced it's unnecessary jargon. Simply saying "Version
4 is compatible with Version 3" should suffice in the vast majority of cases
because "backward" is redundant; if the reader can't figure out that going
from version 4 to version 3 is backwards, they need to install the Scarecrow
1.1 upgrade.

--Geoff Hart, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"The paperless office will arrive when the paperless toilet
arrives."--Matthew Stevens




Previous by Author: Procedures: when do users stop using them?
Next by Author: Affordances defined
Previous by Thread: Questions about Whirlers and Environments
Next by Thread: RE: Backward compatible?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads